With the recent unconditional waiving of Patrick Berglund in Buffalo (not to mention another player in Philly’s system on the same day) for the purposes of terminating his contract, are we witnessing a new trend of teams basically firing unproductive players as a way of getting out from under their contracts (and cap hits)? In Berglund’s case he was signed for 4 more years at a (edit: almost) $4M Cap Hit, and while he’s posted a few 20 goal seasons in the past, the past 2 years (after signing the long-term deal with St.Louis) have seeen his production significantly decline.

Is this a trend?! I don’t have an exact count (maybe someone here does), but since September it seems like there has been at least 7 of 8 instances of this happening. It seems like there has been more instances of this happening in the last 3 months than in the previous 3 years combined! Is this a circumvention of the Salary Cup (well, yes, it is)? But is this legal - both in terms NHL Salary Cap rules but also thinking about contract law?

The reporting is that he was sick and didn’t make it to work. So consequently they’re tearing up an 8-figure contract? Seems pretty harsh. And with that being the case, why haven’t Teams utilized this loophole more instead of being hemmed in by trades to offload salary or buyouts?

Radel Fazleyev getting put on unconditional waiver is more in line with the norm of the type of player that gets put on unconditional waivers. He's not really producing with Lehigh Valley and probably wants to go back to Russia and sign with a team that will give him more playing time. That's pretty much every European player that gets put on unconditional waivers: they come over, play some in the AHL, don't really like it/unhappy at not getting a real shot in the NHL, the contract gets terminated, and they go back to Europe.

John Vogl (of The Athletic Buffalo) has reported that the NHLPA will look and see if there're grounds for a grievance:

The NHLPA has no comment on the Patrik Berglund termination process at this time.
I imagine they'll review it and see if there's any grievances to be filed. I also imagine Jason Botterill has any needed defense ready, or the Sabres wouldn't have taken this step.

— John Vogl (@BuffaloVogl) December 19, 2018

This post from SB Nation's Sabres blog, Die by the Blade, has some more details surrounding the situation, as well: https://www.diebytheblade.com/2018/12/16/18143128/buffalo-sabres-starting-to-get-some-clarity-on-patrik-berglund-suspension

It's definitely something the league will always keep an eye on, as well as the NHLPA. That's two watchdogs to make sure teams aren't abusing the option.
Terminating a contract isn't taken lightly, it's just that they are often mutual agreements, so there's no reason for anyone else to intervene or object.

as a clarification on "mutual":

(2/4) Unconditional waiver placements are almost always the result of a breach of contract (in this case, failing to report).

The club would then send the player & his agent a letter to inform them the contract will be terminated if the player does not report by a certain date.

— CapFriendly (@CapFriendly) December 19, 2018

Thanks for the details. I have an Athletic subscription so will follow that there. Compared to the Fazleyev sitch or the spate of terminations during training camp (players showing up late/overweight ) this def seems quite out of the ordinary, if there is an “ordinary” wrt issue.

Tangential I know but I wonder sometimes how many players from the 60’s and 70’s would meet the grounds for termination in today’s game? Turk Broda anyone?

But doesn't Berglund have to agree to terminating the contract? BUF still owes him the money unless they buy him out. Otherwise, why wouldn't they have done the same thing w/ Matt Moulson? Unless Berglund wants to leave the organization aren't they stuck w/ him? Moulson went to the minors but was still paid big money. This whole situation seems quite unique to me.

it is certainly unique. my understanding is that Berglund does want to leave the organization because he didn't actually want to get traded to Buffalo in the first place (he didn't get his list in on time before the terms of his modified NTC changed) and because he's not happy with being stuck in a 4th-line role. and, as the CapFriendly tweet I referenced in an earlier post states, players aren't required to sign off on their own termination.

the Jake Dotchin thing was also quite a unique situation, and Joe Smith (The Athletic's Lightning beat reporter) wrote about the types of ramifications you were originally concerned about: https://theathletic.com/527557/2018/09/16/why-tampas-jake-dotchin-case-could-set-a-precedent-for-the-entire-nhl/

It's not "mutual" in the sense that Berglund and Botterill sat down in a room and shook hands and agreed to part ways. Berglund had reportedly not shown up to team practices and was subsequently suspended. Buffalo then sent a letter to Berglund and his agent stating that if he did not report within a certain time frame, he would be placed on unconditional waivers for the purpose of contract termination. By not reporting, he somewhat passively "agrees" to the termination, therefore making it mutual.

OK. Great answer. Thx for the clarification. I was under the impression before that BUF attempted to essentially "release" Berglund in an "NFL-style" move where contracts are not guaranteed. I knew that couldn't be the case under the NHL CBA. Thx again.

I'm not certain but i think that if Berglund went to that meeting and pleaded that he accidentally fell asleep for a couple days straight and was sorry for missing the practice, that Botterill would have to have given him a chance to remedy the situation by coming back to the team. That's to my knowledge how it works. I could be wrong.

If a player accidentally misses a practice or function, a team does not automatically have grounds to simply terminate the contract immediately. Some sort of attempt on both sides must be done to come to an agreement on how to fix it. Now that is up to interpretation which makes these things iffy but I think if Berglund wanted to make amends and apologize and continue his contract, he could have and Botterill would have had to show good faith.

Now obviously Berglund intentionally didn't go to the waiver meeting which basically waived any chance at remedying the situation. So this can be construed as mutual. He didn't need to sign anything, his not showing up acknowledged it. Bby not going It just didn't offer the chance for both parties to come out to the media in a mutually respective showing which may have looked better on both parties.

As for Berglund himself, I applaud him. Screw the money. If you are not happy and you are forced into a situation you don't want to continue, dont do it. I applaud him for throwing the money away, its just F'ing money. The man has made a fortune in his career already and if he was smart with his money, he doesn't need to "beg" like the rest of us working schmucks. If you are already a millionaire, whats another million? You can live your life the way you wish and don't need to grovel to no one for the rest of your life. (Within reason of course)

I wish more players said screw the money! But instead they're stuck in situations where a team actually doesn't want them anymore, the fans don't like them anymore, they're teammates may be affected by it, etc etc.

If you've made millions of dollars already and you prolong a situation in which no one is happy, that player is the one being selfish. Yeah if you need the money, that's a different situation. If you need to pay the rent or you'll be on the street, i get it. But if you are like some of these millionaire players who would gladly play out their contracts despite knowing they'll be taken care for life already, I have no sympathy for them.

Not too mention not having to put your body at danger if you are ready to retire instead of signing a new contract in a better situation.

Thanks to both you and DragonRaptorHybrid for all the insights and links. Certainly with all the Cap space taken up by buyouts on every team, if this were a feasible way for most they would take it (they’d also save a few million dollars tho I think the implications for the cap are more significant for most teams).

I do not understand how someone could walk away from $10M (slightly more is what’s remaining on his contract). For playing a game?! Get a Dr note like Marian Hossa and voila you’re on LTIR & can keep your money.

It’s likely he has an offer in the KHL (or at least the SHL, being Swedish, tho their salaries are paltry relatively) to recoup a lot of that money but I reckon he will not get close to it.

He wont find that kind of money anywhere. The highest TEAM salaries in the SHL are around $5m, and $250k is on the high side for players.

Precisely. Hence the word “paltry” (tho 500k is pretty great tho the Big 4 sports leagues in NA have skewed things so much). It just goes to strength the point about it being bizarre he would walk away from a guaranteed $10M. It’s an interesting story to follow.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing. Just giving additional context.